|
The Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court upheld an arbitration agreement being challenged as ambiguous and difficult to read, finding the agreement clearly explained that the parties were giving up the right to a jury trial.
In Fernandes v. Ramsey Nissan, No. DC-013539-04, 2006 WL 3102615 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Nov. 2, 2006), Fernandes leased a motor vehicle from Ramsey Nissan (Ramsey). The lease agreement contained an arbitration clause.
When Fernandes brought suit, Ramsey moved for dismissal pursuant to the arbitration clause. In opposing the motion, Fernandes argued that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable because the language was ambiguous, there was no definitive waiver of statutory claims, and the clause was in an obscure location and exceedingly difficult to read.
The Court rejected each argument. First, the Court held that the language was not ambiguous because the arbitration clause clearly stated that both parties were “giving up the right to seek remedies in court, including the right to jury trial.”
In rejecting Fernandes’ argument that there was no definite waiver of statutory claims, the Court found that the arbitration clause provided Fernandes with sufficient notice that all claims arising from or related to the lease would be resolved through arbitration. Also, as the Court noted, the clause did not contain any limiting language that could be interpreted to exclude statutory claims.
Finally, the Court held that the arbitration agreement was not obscure, hard to find, or difficult to read. The first page of the lease contained a notice, in bold print, advising the signatory that he was agreeing to arbitrate by the signing the agreement. Additionally, the arbitration clause was labeled “Agreement to Arbitrate,” located in a text box, and not in abnormally small type.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|